Livingstone on antisemitism

Back in April 2016, at the time of the suspension from the British Labour Party of Naz Shah and Ken Livingstone, I wrote:

Thinking people can go into a tailspin of despair when confronted with the stark truth they’ve overestimated the power of reason. Yesterday self righteousness, pack instinct, unthinking emotionalism, malice and rank opportunism swept reason aside in the Labour Party.

In short I was complacent. I failed to foresee that the antics of John Mann – who under Labour rules should have had the whip withdrawn, while finding himself on the losing end of a slander writ – would prove an opening shot in the most damaging line of attack to date on a leader with the biggest mandate in living memory. That was dim of me. The coming together of two powerful forces, the Israeli lobby and right wing Labour, both with the full blooded support of ‘liberal’ media, should have sounded warning bells louder than they did.

Since Corbyn had few high profile allies, the loss of Ken Livingstone was a serious blow and he’s been on the back foot – too much say many of us – ever since in respect of the antisemite smears. All the more reason then, with the slurs coming much thicker and very much faster than in April 2016, to hear from Livingstone himself, writing today in Russia Today.

Whilst the issue of Britain leaving the EU has dominated our media for the last two years, a close runner-up has been much of the media claiming the Labour Party has a major problem with anti-Semitism.

Last week an opinion poll found that whilst 36 percent of Brits think there is a problem with anti-Semitism in the Labour Party, 38 percent disagree, leaving 26 percent undecided.

In nearly 50 years as a Labour Party member I never saw a Labour MP raise a single issue of anti-Semitism until two and a half years ago when the left-wing candidate for the youth seat on Labour’s National Executive Committee was accused of being linked to anti-Semitism. Weeks later an independent report revealed there was no such problem, but the smears led to the defeat of the candidate.

Eighty Jewish Labour Party members wrote a letter stating that in all their hundreds of years in the party none of them had ever heard or seen a single incident of anti-Semitism. I had been doing many interviews, pointing out that this was a distraction to undermine the Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn – our first socialist leader in over a generation …

Postscript the following day, August 29. This morning the Guardian runs a decent opinion piece by Ahmed Samih Khaladi. It’s pretty good and I don’t want to sound churlish, really I don’t. I wasn’t born with a mistrust of the Guardian, you know. I came to it slowly and with reluctance. But this is how liberal media shore up reputations for fairminded and fearless truth-seeking, committed to plurality of viewpoint. They toss a progressive bone or two when it’s affordable and when their reputations have come under particularly heavy fire.

I note too that the piece has not been opened up for comment, but enough of the carping. Here’s a couple of extracts from Khalidi’s piece, which I recommend reading in full.

Jewish opposition to Zionism has a long and distinguished history. Furthermore, the Palestinian historical narrative has been largely vindicated, in part by Israeli and Jewish historians, and Jewish voices in support of Palestinian rights today abound. Using the charge of anti-Zionism as a tool to silence critics of today’s Israel is the last resort of those seeking to deflect attention away from the egregious path that Israel appears to have chosen.

It wants to have it both ways, on the one hand to charge with racism those who conflate anti-Zionism and antisemitism. On the other hand,it accuses those who refuse this conflation, of antisemitism on the grounds that anti-Zionism denies the Jews the right to self-determination. By this token, any criticism of Israel or Zionism becomes a slur on the Jewish people. The insidious goal of the “anti-anti-Zionist” campaign is to silence the Palestinians and their supporters and to smother them with the charge of racism. No one should fall for this or accept it

And a little further down…

The Labour party’s Zionist roots run deep – its intellectuals and party leaders have all been deeply immersed in a Zionist/socialist ethos that has long been bent to defend and serve the Zionist enterprise both pre- and post-state. The party’s 1943 adoption of ethnic cleansing (“let the Arabs be encouraged to move out as the Jews move in”) sent a strong signal to the Jewish leadership as to the boundaries of the possible in Palestine.

Today Corbyn stands alone among Labour leaders for his open support of the Palestinian cause. This is a remarkable historical turnabout and one that the Palestinians should be unequivocally grateful for. The trouble is that he has singularly failed to make the case in his own defence. Under a barrage of attacks on the antisemitism issue, he has retreated and backtracked, mumbled and fumbled as if he has something to hide, thereby undermining his credibility as leader and peacemaker alike.

Note those last two sentences. Khalidi elaborates on the point I make about Corbyn being too much on the back foot. Many will see this as a personal criticism. Not me. What I see is a decent and principled man locked in by the painfully narrow limits of the ‘parliamentary road to socialism’. Somebody please help me out here, since (a) capitalism is killing us all, and (b) none of the other roads on offer have a shred of credibility.

87 Comments

They’re co-opting Judaism
ISRAEL’S JEWISH “NATION-STATE” LAWS CONFIRMS IT IS AN APART-HATE STATE
We’re just starting to see the real-world impact of the nation-state law – and it’s exactly what we feared.

An Israeli state’s attorney announced plans to use the law …because the nation-state law enshrines promoting Jewish-only settlement as a constitutional value. This law handed a big win to those who want to conflate Jewish identity with a racist apartheid vision of Israel. It’s just the latest in a state-run campaign to define Judaism.

But that’s why it’s more important than ever for us to resist their vision of Judaism and stand up strongly for a different kind of Jewish community: A Jewishness that is incomplete without freedom for Palestinians.

It is important not to exaggerate the importance of this odious ‘IHRA’ definition’s acceptance by the party. Much more important are the concrete steps being taken to re-democratise the Party’s institutions and procedures: the selection of candidates, both municipal and Parliamentary by the membership and the formation of policy by mandated delegates at open meetings are both of much more importance than this obscure regulation.
The reality is that the Labour Party now has between half a million and a million registered members, between the local parties and the contracted-in Trade Unionists. In addition there are hundreds of thousands who regiister as supporters and can vote in some elections. This is an enormous improvement and means that the power to implement policies within the party is getting within the reach of the ordinary member.
Who can doubt that the nature of the debate over foreign policy and the middle east in particular is going to be determined, democratically, in conferences. This will be an immense improvement not just on the New Labour days when members had to swallow policies made at the centre but over the ‘good old days’ when Union block votes overwhelmed the membership’s choices.
At the same time that this IHRA nonsense has been accepted, its sponsors have paid the immense price of ‘outing’ themselves as disloyal, wreckers who prefer the interests of Israel and Imperialism to those of the people of Britain. Ken Livingstone may have withdrawn, with dignity, from the Party: his accusers are going to be de-selected and driven out of the Party, utterly dscredited with reputations that Ramsay Mac and Jimmy Thomas would not have envied. Then there is the question, which naturally arises, of whether, as an overtly racist organisation, the Jewish Labour Movement, a subsidiary of the party formerly known as the Labour Party of Israel, can be allowed to remain an affiliate of a democratic, clearly anti-racist party.
Politics is a complex business but in the past few years the Labour Party, thanks in no small part to Jeremy Corbyn and his allies has come close to being what was always dreamed of- a vehicle controlled by and acting in the interests of the people, or 99% of them, of the UK. This is no time to indulge in the politics of defeatism and cynicism.
As to those responsible for the imposition of the IHRA definition nobody deserves more credit (blame) than Jon Lansman who appears to be acting as a warlord using Momentum as a base. The answer, of course, to such corrupt behaviour is democracy, which will work in any organisation.

The British Jewish community have taken quite a risk in their campaign against Palestinian Rights with the completely OTT responses of (expletive deleted) Hodge and the totally potty Sachs. In my youth there was widespread anti semitism; in business they were called ‘Jewboys’ and ostracised. (This week’s Private Eye reminded me of the term). The working class preferred the term Yid (courtesy PE). By the 60’s anti semitism was frowned on, not least by the Labour Party and racist UK had new targets, blacks, Asians and latterly Muslims. But old prejuidices die hard. There is no ‘outrage’ at claims of anti semitism, only amusement at the riduclous claims being made and elderly ladies screaming abuse at elderly gentlemen. There is great support of course in the Jewish community but that’s preaching to the converted and you get the feeling nobody else cares or believes nonsense allegations from the likes of Netanyu, an International criminal. In Germany and East Europe anti Semites of an older sort are rising – but little complaint from Sachs. Don’t they realise the real danger for them is not with Labour just because they support Palestinians but from the old Right?Talk about blinkers! If they thought about it it is Labour who will protect them – well, would have done if they’d stayed.

The odious Zionist and Guardian commentator Friedland has published yet another article smearing Corbyn and claiming the witchhunt is not all about Israel (if not, why so many blue star of david flags being waved at demonstrations?) about 45 minutes ago. All the immediate comments are fulsomely congratulatory of Friedland and anti Corbyn. All already got plenty of recommendations. One could almost ask if Friedland coordinated the timing of publication with a heads-up to Hasbara.

Almost has as much stench of corrupt coordination as the sudden publication ot 2 Russian ‘sectret agent’ suspects in the Skripal farce this morning. First day back in Parliament, PMQs… LOL.

“All the immediate comments are fulsomely congratulatory of Friedland and anti Corbyn.” Could have something to do with the fact that almost all anti-Zionist or pro-Corbyn comments in the Guardian are simply not published.

“But in a move that will dismay Jewish groups and anger many Labour MPs, the executive is also expected to include a so-called free speech clause, allowing criticism of Israel.”

ANY criticism of Israel has been bracketed under a “SO-CALLED free speech clause” i.e. ANY criticism of Israel can no longer be defended by calling it “free speech” i.e. there can be NO criticism of Israel.

The ‘Free Speech’ clause as an addendum to the ‘End of Free Speech’ diktat is an injurous insult to free speech. What it says is “I know this is wrong, but …” It is an admonition of capitulation to racism.

Labour’s retrograde step took the evolution of anti-racism back a hundred years, maybe slightly less, to the interwar years that were the breeding ground for fascism. The Full IHRA is a Fascism of the mind, that has already come to encompass anti-capitalism and 9/11 truth …the subsidiary definition of the ‘new left antisemitism’ is a pre-dispositional thoughtcrime – according to Lansman. How can freedom from oppression dialogically flourish when dialogue is dead? In the terminology of Sartre: Labour has self-inflictedly rendered its universalist cause as ‘practico-inert’. Universalism is now exceptionalism; anti-racism is now racism; etc

It’s hard not feel deflated but the IHRA definition is an instrument that may hamper or obstruct but once you have right on your side it is unlikely to be strong enough to ever subvert calls for justice – in fact it may strengthen them?

The holocaust does not give right-wing Israeli’s carte blanche in Palestine, and attempts to suppress what is going on there will only intensify resistance.

Today may be a victory for Hodge and her right wingers co-travellers but it may ultimately prove Pyrrhic.

The fight against racism is bigger than Labour: it is a significant part of the Master/Slave dialectic of resisting all oppressions …ALL oppressions. By siding with the Master power principle in appeasement CANNOT end oppression. That which cannot end oppression, thus becomes oppression. Are we to be our own oppressors?

This is not time limited or an impermanence, this is setting up the political debate for the 21st century. Can you imagine a near future time when the racists will give up their “Pyrrhic” victory (a victory that came at no real cost to the victors racism: and huge cost to the self-vanquished universalism …so is it really Pyrrhic at all?)

I’m damned if I do, but I’m more damned if I don’t: Fascism, Nazism, and totalitarianism evolved as creeping gradualisms; absorbing power litlle by little – until they reached a critical mass. Then the realisation of what is upon us is already too late. If we reflect later as to “How did this come to pass?” …I do not want to see the day when we view the NEC’s decision yesterday as our progenitor Kristallnacht – only with an inversion of the oppressor/oppressed as the new Master.

You may think that far fetched: but history informs me otherwise. The newly acquiesced to oppressors are already building on their “Pyrrhic” victory. They are not weakened; they have not spent their forces on a hollow victory, they are already on the march to their next victory …and the next. Unless we stop them.

Remember Labour’s sloganeering “For the many, not the few”. This is a subversion and inversion of that ethos. This is a tiny, but hyper-aggressive, and ultra-vocal exceptionalist few. They are the one’s that should be disenfranchised as bringing the party into disrepute, and for subverting the core universalist ethic of socialism. They are crypto-fascists, soon to be (if not already) openly fascist, and already petty-dictators.

Have a quick look at Tony Greenstein’s blog. Look at the placard the Hasidic Jewish gentleman was holding. Labour would NOT lose the support of the entire Jewish community, only of a small unrepresentative dictatorial minority. Whose support do we want anyway; the many, or the few?

We need to take time to build an alliance with the authentic voice of all oppressed groups, not their crypto-fascist vocal minorities (see the Paulo Freire quote Mog posted for me). In that way we can build a broad-church international anti-oppression alliance in solidarity with all the disenfranchised …which by this stage is more or less inclusive of all humanity. Such an alliance would by definition be victorious.

Instead, Labour sent out a message to the oppressor and possessor classes: the more ultra-vocal and hyper-aggressive you are (a power elite specialty) – the more power and rights you can have. The voice of universal humanity and the eventual victory chorus of the oppressed has been submerged by the high-octane screaming of the oppressor.

We ain’t got another hundred years, Harry, before we are all oppressed into slavery by the Master power principle. Corbyn is a man, the party is a machine that has all but taken him over. He “gave up” on the cause of universalism, by many accounts. The shift to the left, or the left-takover, is itself over-exagerated …particularly if the Quisling Lansman is considered representative of the ‘left’. The party has lurched to the right and taken a step toward an elitist statist fascism.

The only way I can see forward is if Jeremy Corbyn resigns to form a new genuinely socialist party: returning to ‘candidate’ Corbyn’s principled Bennite roots …and taking the grassroots ‘Momentum’ with him. (Or Umunna fucks off and takes the Blairite/Zionists with him – call their bluff Jeremy, you are better off without them).

Thanks, BB, I enjoyed that – your analysis, as usual, is fascinating but at a very basic level Corbyn gets latitude in my book if only because he is a far cry from Blair, Hodge, Chukka or the endless line of body snatchers who have infested the party.

For me a Corbyn/McDonnell victory at this moment in time at least sets up a possibility that Labour might revert to its core values rather than the dire form of pseudo-Thatcherism embraced post-Blair which has become responsible for undoing the economic gains fought for by socialists.

We know Corbyn is anti-war, we know he is not a racist, we know that he is committed to reinvigorating public services – at the same time it is unrealistic to expect him to single-handedly derail the neoliberal juggernaut (not least because it has been gathering speed for decades), or combat a media that has inexhaustible capacity for producing smears against him (from which allegations of antisemitism have proved the pièce de résistance).

Corbyn needs allies like never before if only for the fact rejection of his leadership is tantamount to a post Brexit Britain being handed to JRM, de Pfeffel and the Govester, or just as depressingly, right wingers in the Labour party cheered on by phoneys like Margaret Hodge.

Corbyn has been leader for three years. There have been major changes throughout the party bureacuracy, right to the top.
Yet the party seems to be going backwards in terms of its ethics. It is now a de facto racist party, that is still putting genuine Leftwing activists under investigation – essentially for being Leftwing..
How much longer, in your opinion, before ‘the Corbyn Left’ can bring the kind of politics that Corbyn himself has championed for decades to an actual political platform?
What is your opinion of Lansman and Momentum and their role in the changes to the party, its democracy and the fake antisemitism story of the past few months?

I don’t think anyone is arguing against the assertion that Corbyn has proved himself a person of integrity and good intention in the past. But his role demands more. Appeasement is not leadership.

The only people who win if we turn against Corbyn are the actors first responsible for manufacturing base, and false accusations against him.

The peerage given to Chakrabarti contributed to a mood whereby Corbyn felt he had to be seen to act more decisively once further allegations of antisemitism surfaced (because of insinuations about Shami being bought off as thanks for conducting a cursory investigation).

Look the whole thing is bollocks and the likes of Marc Wadsworth should receive an apology and be immediately reinstated but don’t forget Corbyn also has to deal with traitors like Tom Watson as well.

But lets say the lobby briefing against Corbyn were to succeed (and he is ousted) – is there a plan B?

The problem as I see it [bracketing off the IHRA] is that Labour’s entire political concept is redundant (the Tories even more so, but I’ll ignore them). We are 18 years into a century were radical change is going to affect humanity, not only do we not have a Plan B, we are not even thinking about the unique set of problems that demand a Plan B.

Let’s just analogously call it the ‘environmental bottleneck problem.’ I’m not going to flesh it out, suffice to say: humanity will be going through a bottleneck in the coming decades that requires urgent action NOW. We are already overdue a transition (given the multidecadal timescale for transition). We are not even formulating the ideas that we might enact, and it is not part of the political discourse.

It might seem unfair to view the problem through the rubric of Labour policy; as every other political institution and the majority of the electorate are ignorant of the problem …but ignorance is not bliss.

Just to quickly address Labour’s economic policy: the world market is ‘dead cat bouncing’ in a downward spiral: China alone has a 30% overcapacity problem; India, Brazil, Turkey, ditto: there is too much production seeking too little consumption; China is dumping product on the market below the cost of production; on the other end of the scale, we are 70% beyond the sustainable ecological footprint of the planet; pretty soon, we will need a new planet.

So we set up the NDB, with regional branches to stimulate micro-industries, entrepreneurs, and SME ventures …doing what, making what, producing what, and for whom? Each other? There is an increasing global overcapacity, that due to super-exploitation can produce commodities for a fraction of the cost (even if we were to employ import-substitution industrialisation: import embargoes; protectionist tariffs (all anti-EU and WTO)). we would have the costliest commodities on the planet, that we could not export. Any economic benefit would be absorbed by the commodity cost …so we are back to square one?

And that final cost is planetary cannibalisation.

Do we continue to ‘grow’ the economy by the current strategy – monetising debt, circulating borrowed or stolen money between ourselves in a service economy? And if the banks did go (good riddance!)? The UKs core business model has always been military and corporate imperialism, exploitative and extractivist destruction, and credit terrorism: making a living from someone elses blood, sweat, and tears. Or economically sugar-coated: off someone elses surplus value creation. We are a nation of merchants and credit mercenaries.

The nub is: if our wealth increases, someone elses wealth – in a dependent tributary nation – must decrease. No one wants to confront issues like this. Our lifestyle is predatory.

The problem with ignoring the problem is that the problem it will not resolve itself: it will only become more of a problem. As far as I am aware, a lot of emerging market dollarised debt becomes due next year. Then there is that Brexit thing. I do not know what will happen, but we live in a systemically fragile global economy that is synchronously interlinked and self-organised. If there is the slightest delay in our ‘Just in Time’ food and energy supplies: we are not in the slightest bit prepared.

[As for food and energy sovereignty: or global eco-economic and universal humanitarian justice – these are non-issues that should be our current priorities …not AS and Brexit?]

This is bigger than politics, I know. But the political machines hook is “believe in us, and we will ensure that you prosper?” The question is “Prosper, how?” Or “Prosper, how?” – when you are not even addressing the underlying causes or consequences of continual prosperity?

Plan B: think radically …and be prepared!

Plan C: hope that some severe, but not too catastrophic eco-economic shocks shake everyone to their senses! And wake up the thought-leaders?

We cannot return our economics to the 1970s: if we change our eco-economic outlook – we might survive to the 2070s. If we make it to the 2070s: we might have formulated Plan B (an ecosophic community of mutual aid and universal humanity – that may possibly pull things out of the fire?).

But it would be nice if someone planned ahead. Funnily enough, that is exactly what I thought ‘candidate’ Corbyn would do. How naive I was (particularly about “no new nukes”)?

“What is your opinion of Lansman and Momentum and their role in the changes to the party”. As a member of Camden Momentum I can tell you that Lansman’s last minute support for full IHRA acceptance in no way a reflects the opinion of the Momentum membership. In a Momentum meeting on Sept. 20th, of over 100 people present all but 2 voted in favour of a motion against full IHRA acceptance (i.e. with ‘examples’). This shocking betrayal of the membership of Momentum by its own leader has served to highlight the urgent need for increased democratisation not only within the Labour party but also within Momentum itself.

If “the IHRA definition does not restrict freedom of speech” as the Jewish Leadership Council asserts, then why is the JLC so irate about a “free speech caveat” that, logically on the JLC’s terms, cannot affect IHRA?

The Nakbah is seventy years old and rapidly worsening. It has not, yet, reached the full pitch of exterminationism of the Nazi Judeocide, but if it ever did you can bet that Antonyl will slither out to give it his full propagandistic support.

BTW, in case there’s anyone here who still thinks that Ken Livingstone misspoke when he talked about Zionist/Nazi collaboration in the thirties, here’s what Ron Unz had to say about that subject–and other related subjects: http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-jews-and-nazis/

Labour’s total capitulation to the insanely hate-crazed Zionazis over the sham ‘IHRA definitions’ will CERTAINLY NOT stop the lynch-mob. The execrable Hodge declared, openly, to cheering, that their aim is the destruction of Corbyn. Nothing other.

Palestinians are Semites too. Why should this term apply to just one half of the two brothers?
Corbyn can be rightly described as being a pro-Semite, wanting the two halves of Semites to settle their differences and live in peace.

Why does anti-semitism get put together with racism? Judaism is a religion, not an ethnicity.
Are the Falasha Jews from Ethiopia ethnically the same as Jews who immigrated to Palestine pre-war, or after?
The whole thing is the ‘establishment’s’ desperate attempt to stop the Labour Party getting to power.
My God, all those lovely private-sector jobs in privatised cock-ups for MPs and ex-MPs, and Lords going away!
BTW, no state or country has a ‘right to exist’.(Or biblical right-to-exist). Only if the guns are big enough does any state survive. Look at Israel’s Nukes…

This is a common problem these days. People don’t seem to realise it’s not 1988 any more. I don’t think many people actually know Russia isn’t a communist state and the media don’t appear to be in a hurry to clarify.

Somebody help me out? No can do, Phillip …the cold light of reason has to dawn from within.

I chronicled it all contemporaneously, I have no appetite to repeat myself here …but it was all there in black and white for those with eyes to see: the social history of the Corbyn Experience Sell-Out Tour …which, by now, has well and truly Sold Out.

As one stark reminder: I will bring up one such undeniable truth – the fundraising and support for the White Helmets. This happened to coincide with the atrocity of the century …the child massacre at Rashidin. Need I bring up another: like Khan Sheikhoun?

The inconvenience of fact: given that it is true.

Or then there is the next, in Idlib, perhaps?

On the matter in hand: while everyone was ostrich SKWAWKING about the nasty, nasty media …did anyone else notice the JC took an article in the Guardian to announce Labour’s craven capitulation to Zionist racism? He unilaterally adopted the ‘IHRA+10.75 Code’ (as I dubbed it at the time). It matters little if they adopt the other 0.25 working definitions of antisemitism this week: the damage had already been done (in the essence of the IHRA). Corbyn liberated Zionist racism; granted it the impunity of an exceptionalist status; and cheaply sold out Labour’s proud heritage of universalism …for what? A rising cacophony of racism and antisemitism smears…

When Zionist racists are elevated to a unique platform: and empowered to call out anti-zionists; anti-racists, and black-activists as racist …Free Speech is dead. And this enabling was meant to end racism?

Did it end, in the last month? Or has the orchestrated chorus reached a febrile pitch? Universal humanitarianism has been trodden into the mud, for nothing but to advance the racist cause.

Enough is Enough: Never Again …Hajo Meyer dedicated his life to warn us where appeasement leads: back to Auschwitz …but he was denounced too.

Enough: there in the mud beneath the feet, tarnished but not blackened, is the root of the ground that leads to a universal humanitarian and emancipatory future. It has no political vehicle, yet. I dare say we will have to craft one along the way: with our bare hands, if necessary. For the moment, we will have to walk alone …until we meet up in a humanitarian future we can call our own?

The path to the future cannot be made in a bad-faith unconscionable compromise with self and power. And what of the Other? How many children must die before Labour denounce the White Helmets or NATO imperialism? The strong rumours persist that the next victims – no doubt including mothers, their children, their babies (for maximal propaganda effect) – are already selected. If we legitimate this through political support: what kind of future are we contributing to?

One that very much resembles the ultra-violence of the recent past. Can 2% GNP logistic support for NATO imperialism end imperialism? And what of the occupation, dehumanisation, and Nazification of Eastern Europe our wage labour goes to fund? Are our brothers and sisters there to become the designated Unpeople of our future prosperity?

The authentic path to a universal humanitarian future starts from the stirring of conscience within …it starts with the dawning of the cold light of reason.

A previous comment worth re-reading from BigB:In a situation of manipulation, the Left is almost always tempted by a “quick return to power,” forgets the necessity of joining with the oppressed to forge an organization, and strays into an impossible “dialogue” with the dominant elites. It ends by being manipulated by these elites, and not infrequently itself falls in an elitist game, which it calls “realism
Paulo Friere.
The ‘progressive’ Corbyn Labour movement has led its constituent supporters into a cul-de-sac dead-end progression where they have fallen into framing their collective identity as a victim psychology. There they have been absorbed by the dominant victiim theology of the manipulators and oppressors. Consider that in the last two years: every time Jeremy Corbyn has had the chance to validate the lifelong anti-racist, anti-Zionist activist over the Zionist racist – he chose to validate the Zionist racist instead. He chose Mann over Livingstone; Smeeth over Wadsworth; JLM over Jackie Walker: Ellman over Hajo Meyer. He got rid of Christine Shawcroft, Moshe Machover (who was quickly re-instated); Tony Greenstein …but it was not Jeremy, I hear the SKWAWK.
True, but he is not a singularity – and he has set the tone for the parties conversion to Zionism by refusing to take the lead and hide behind process. He could have intervened and preserved the parties commitment to universalism and anti-racism …but he enabled and empowered the racists instead.
“Conversion to Zionism” I hear the epistemically closed silos SWAWK …but Jeremy is standing against the oppressors.
This plaintive enfeebled cry would be more pertinent if it could acknowledge the fact that Jeremy took an article in the Guardian to unilaterally decree that he was adopting the full IHRA diktat. I say full, it might as well be. He has adopted all but one of the working examples in principle. The last will be appropriately reworded. Appropriately reworded by the manipulators and oppressors, that is. I fully deconstructed the ‘IHRA+10.75 Code’, as I am calling it here.https://off-guardian.org/2018/07/31/matthew-dancona-and-his-fake-news/#comments
It is a race hate charter that empowers the Smeeths, Austins and Manns and grants them ‘Chosen’ exceptionalist impunity. LFI can celebrate any atrocity and agitate for the bombing of Gaza: but if you are not Jewish and you call this racist, you will likely be expelled (the verdict is pre-determined as the NCC ‘kangaroo court’ is stocked with rightwingers; as I pointed out).
Not only is the antisemitism slur – a race-hate-speech-act by definition – a sure accusatory assurance of discipline or expulsion …its meaning has already been extended to end free speech against capitalist elites and 9/11 truth seeking. And this is supposed to end the racism: by enabling the racists?
So far in Jeremy Corbyns tenure as leader: Corbyn’s Labour has embraced and funded the White Helmets (shortly before the Rashidin child murder atrocity); embraced the regime change and NFZ agitprop Jo Cox Foundation (an elitist front organisation recently exposed by Whitney Webb and Vanessa Beeley); embraced nuclear weapons and nuclear power (elitist fetishist toys); embraced NATO/EU imperialism and the occupation and Nazification of Eastern Europe; embraced Russophobia (to the point of endorsing Browder’s agent Navalny) and the Magnitsky sanctions agenda (based on elitist lies and manipulation); embraced the Zionist race-hate IHRA Code (another oppressor manipulation); actively purged the party of genuine lifelong anti-Zionist anti-racists (to appease Zionazis who will not be appeased); and are prepared to betray democracy by keeping us in the sub-imperialist (soon to be military sub-imperialist) EU …not bad, eh?
Hark: I hear a chorus from the consience-deleted and mauvais foi indentitarian silos …”it’s a smear, it’s a smear”. Well it is getting more and more untenable to hold that view in isolation. Perhaps if the universal humanitarian implications of any of the above seeped into the unconsciousness silos: they would collapse? Then we could build a meaningful movement toward universal emancipation by siding in solidarity with the global oppressed: not their oppressors?
Pandering to the media-culture-industrial-complex cannot end oppression. Let them scream. Expel the Haters. Let them scream some more. In solidarity with each other is the only thing that will drown out the elite manipulatory scream. Giving them freedom of expression drowns our universal humanity instead. ¡No pasarán!
It seems to me the manipulators and oppressors and elite propagandists have done well in evoking an external enemy to divert attention from the anti-life beast of oppression Labour has become: was it ever other than a capitalist imperialist project masquerading as a universalist humanitarian project? …plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose
Only #NotInMyName.

It doesn’t look good for Corbyn or Labour.
Lansman, Unite and the JLM against the JVL and the excluded anti-Zionists. Atzmon’s intra-Jewish discourse.

In a community or society setting: freedom can never be an absolute. Nor can it rightly be an individual freedom (liberalism, libertarianism (personal fascism)). It can only ever be Other-freedom.

What is Other-freedom? First, I need a working model of community freedom. Freedom cannot exist on its own; it would have to be generated. The values that generate freedom for the community are empathy/compassion and social responsibility …supported by a core humanitarian ethic.

Imagine an equilateral triangle with Freedom at the apex; with Responsibility and Empathy as the corners of the base; and Ethics as the body of the triangle …a bit corny, but this represents the relational FREE triangle.

Let’s take a mythical corporate capitalist to see how the current dominant culture produces only a state of unfreedom. The corporate capitalist works from the Cartesian ‘Will to Self’ (W2S) for self-maximising personal gain.

Freedom: most briefly, hyper-competitively acquired through self-maximising wealth, power, and status
Responsibility: to self; to ‘business interests’ that prioritise maximal accumulation; to elite monopolising communities, exclusive clubs and societies; limited responsibility to family and ‘friends’, to those who offer loyalty, status, or promise of gain.
Empathy: vestigial and inactive; of a sort limited perhaps to close family (dynasty or epoch-making).
Ethics: vestigial and inactive. Anything goes to bolster prestige and power.

Now, to answer your question, what would the relations of freedom need to be like to produce the society that worked for the many, not just the few?

The hypothetical socialist citizen would work from the ‘Will to Selflessness’ (W2Ss) for community-maximising communal gain.

Freedom: an internally valorisable state; not contingent on material gain or personal ‘ownership’; contingent on community development; non-exploitational reciprocal relationship with self, society, and environment.
Responsibility: radically socially responsible; to international solidarity; for the global greater good; stewardship and responsibility to the Unborn (life valorising, not limited to humanity).
Empathy: evolving and universally humanitarianly focused; not limited by distance (absence becomes presence: self functions as Other dependent).
Ethics; ditto; toward the larger community of interconnected and interdependent holistic Life

In other words: Other-freedom …from self to selflessness …from the personal to the communal and natural.

Clearly, we cannot go from here to there without personal commitment to a humanitarian ethics, radical responsibility and critical consciousness. We have to lose the internalised values of capitalism: even though there are few who would fit my pastiche of power. I know most who visit this site would already be closer to my utopian socialist idealism.

It’s a bad day, Bevin …a dark day for socialism. No good can come from adopting the full IHRA (unless the proviso says “Disregard all of the above”?) The Zionist racists will be like piranhas who have scented blood. Expect Labour to be stripped of the good and the faithful one by one.

We all have to draw a line somewhere, somewhen, and say “No pasaran!” …enough is enough?

Today seems like a pretty good day to me. Here and no further: path to a universal humanitarian future starts here.

Individual freedom of speech, religion and opinion is surely the foundation of any decent society just as the founding fathers said? Trying to limit concepts of freedom to collectives is surely anathema to the very notion of freedom itself?

“”Individual freedom of speech, religion and opinion is surely the foundation of any decent society just as the founding fathers said?

What the founding fathers said, and the society that was founded on those Enlightenment values, turned out two be two very different things? The Enlightenment Project that is America turned out to be rotten to the core. So much for inalienable individual rights?

What I was trying to address is how to turn those ‘God Given’ absolutised individual rights into genuine community and society producing values …truly social values. That the values you highlight are patently false and inverted – producing their opposite – is self-evident. Is this not because the very ‘individual’ that was guaranteed those inalienable rights is also a falsehood? What is an ‘individual’, a ‘person’, a ‘self’ …an atom of an atomised society? A company?

Surely I do not have to point out that the prioritising of individual rights to ownership, and the extension of ‘individual’ private property rights to ‘incorporations’ (corporate personhood); the statist hierarchy built around the enforcement of private property rights: their enforcement by violence; etc …leads to the destruction of society, not the construction of society? So no, I fundamentally disagree. Individual rights within a statist hierarchical dominance did not, and cannot, found a decent society. Witness the invert totalitarianism of America, built on extended individual (incorporated) private property rights. It’s fundamentally alienating and anti-human.

” Trying to limit concepts of freedom to collectives is surely anathema to the very notion of freedom itself?”

Yes it is, only I have no idea what “concepts of freedom” limited to ‘collectives’ you are talking about. They do not follow from what I wrote and ‘collectives’ is not a word I used.

What I was trying to highlight was a turning away from the preferential focus on the individual to focus on the community: toward the community of mutual aid and international solidarity. Focus on the figurative individual brought the abolition and atomisation of community and society. Thatcher said “there is no such thing as society” …and with a competitive individual apotheosis and private property rights – she was right.

How about cooperative mutual aid, and a society organised around the principle of a universal humanity, instead? That can’t be furthered by conferring special rights and privileges, and exceptional status on a chosen group …who retain their inalienable individual rights to freedom of speech, freedom of religious expression, and freedom of opinion …as a result of violent subjugation, alienation and oppression of the dehumanised Other: can it?

As an adjunct: I forgot about Guattari’s distinction of being ‘singular’ …as opposed to being a fully individuated individual.

In my conception, the fully individuated individual is a modern conceptual idealism (a ‘legal fiction’), and a statist dialectical creatrix (the state and its institutions and incorporations impersonate the individual and absorb their rights and wealth. The incorporations become the electorate that creates the powerbase for the state. The state empowers the incorporations in a dialectic of dispossessed material wealth).

The incorporated state has replaced family,doctor, educator, and the truly community society that could work for all has become its economic dependency and host. The individual is a totemic impersonator that distracts from the dispossession, repression, and atomisation of anything that could be called community or society.

Being singular is being able to deploy ones unique abilities, talents and creativity fully in the reciprocal community of the Other …ones extended kinship clan: which has been reduced to a vestigial redundancy by its infiltration, exploitation and capitalisation. As the community grows, the mutual singularity grows. Personal wealth is both singular and a community common: that are reciprocally valorisational.

Just think: capitalism utilises a tiny fraction of human uniqueness and creativity, and only in its own service. The rest of humanities singular talents are not just squandered and wasted, but actively repressed, dumbed and numbed down, channeled into hedonism and addiction, into social-media-TV soporification, or suicided off as redundant. A major part of humanity is denied basic food and water justice: which is developmentally harmful by design. There is a vast singularity of human potential that could achieve, well, anything it wanted to achieve. All but for the rights, intellectual and property, of a few fully individuated individuals and their incorporated personhood.

I’m sure the former is much longer than the later?
By no means perfect but still infinitely preferable to the tory or new Labour alternatives – that at least has to be the starting point until we can persuade a few more comrades that a 1,000 year neoliberal Reich is not in the best interest of most people.

First, I encounter the problem I call the ‘Corbyn singularity’, which is to look purely at the leader in isolation, and not notice how far to the right candidate Corbyn’s policies have been drawn. If I look at the Labour party as a whole, not as a reduction, which is after all what we will get with a Corbyn government …every one of candidate Corbyn’s policies have flipped, often diametrically. Some examples: anti-EU to pro-EU (particularly if you include Starmer’s POV); anti-NATO to pro-NATO; anti-Russia to anti-Russia (no change, by his own admission); anti-nuclear to pro-nuclear (the party position on Trident and ‘sustainable’ nuclear energy); anti-racist to pro-racist (TBC when the NEC vote comes out later, but really that is a formality, as quoted above); etc… Updated: CONFIRMED

Taxing a few neoliberals and re-nationalising a few natural monopolies (that should never have been privatised even by capitalist standards) is not an end to neoliberalism. It is a mildly redistributive ‘progressive’ tax on neoliberal profits. What about the core of corporate credit imperialism: did you miss the hushed tones whisper of the City that “pro-business” (translated: that means pro-neoliberal) Labour could be the party of choice? Or McDonnell’s sidling up to neoliberalism, including his talk to a largely empty room at Davos, to placate them that a ‘Robin Hood’ tax will not harm their core business model …which is cannibalising the planet and dehumanising its residents. Sorry, Harry, save the faux-deglobalisation anti-neoliberal bit…

But yes, still marginally better than Treason May and her crony capitalist elite: but here is less and less ground between them. And if it buys time for a few more comrades to rally against the “1,000 year Reich” …only, don’t count on the Red Tories ending it. Updated: even less and less ground with the adoption of the Full IHRA (with proviso). We now have two anglo-Zionist capitalist imperialist war parties.

Breaking News: they’ve only gone and done it …accepted the full IHRA: with proviso. On a brief reading: apparently, for the moment, you can still think about criticising Israel …only, make sure there are no recording devices, cameras, media, or Zionists in the room before you open your mouth.

No joking, this is a sad, sad, day in history, my friend …a sad day I never thought I would see when I supported candidate Corbyn and rejoined the party. I ask you, which side of history is Jeremy now?

Zionazism is perhaps the most virulent racism extant, which is why they DESPISE Corbyn and all real anti-racists. It’s the old Through the Looking-Glass world where support for the Palestinians suffering under a racist regime of extraordinary brutality becomes a sign of ‘racism’. All confected through straight money power.

Yup, Corbyn is doing an Putin, anying the hell out of me, but “understandable” in this barbaric times.

Its an attack, not on Corbyn in general, but since He is on the path upward to rule, He is an easy target foor smear, and to me, thiis is smearing, nothing else than an continuation of present circus we call international politics, where ISISrael have ramped up their propaganda aperatus into warp speed, and is everywhere, some good and others yap the same lame lies, of course, to demonise anyone whom crtizies the Tribe and their petty mafia state ISISrael.
The largest org crime family since the dawn of man.

And, please, its Britsh trash media, you cant be serious, they are so rotten and corrupt they make me laugh, their propaganda colutions with the present moronic Gov is been exposed to the entire world, thru staggering lousy and when ignorants make videos like the CW attack in Syria/Britain, where even the IPCW ( my brain jammed ) managed to confirm the use of Sarin thru an video made so bad it hurted, yeah, this creeps are in for round 2.
Chlorine, yeah, dunka, dunka, even of my house burned down, you would find chlorine, its soap, morons, chitchen remdies, as Plumbo to caustic soda cans, and so on.
And the Shitpal saga, humped with evets going not that far back, things even Insane Mcain admitted was wrong, the Iraqi war, later on, the Libyan war, all fake, of course, but how is the liberation going on this days, Brits, even after all this years of manufacturing propaganda and shamelessly pimping it, they shamelessly continue with this anti-semittic bullshit spraying, because thats what it is, pure bullshit.

In an sense, patiens is an virtue, the path the MSM have chousen is backfiring and they are loosing it, the grip and the cash, and I hope people continue to hit them where it hurts, their wallet.

I blame everything on the MSM, they, are the problem, not anyone else, and not Corbyn, despite been foggy, take the long road, let them hang them self, it takes time but is worth it, just watch the freaks go balistic.
I have been up against them for decades, and I have always challanged them on debates, but kit never manifestes, that day I give you my name, where I have some balls I want ripped off and served on an silver platter, I am that pissed off and its my own I am most angry on, because I know from my own life the situation the Palestinians are in, made to be stangers in their own land, but one thing do I hate, above all, traitores, that is an sin.
To me, they are Oat breakers, and should be wipped in public.
Thats all you need to know, whom is doing what, most of knows, but some needs to be kicked awake, and from now on, never forget this, the MSM and the Politicians we have, they all lie about everything.
All the time.
And now, the world slowly realises just that, the scope and scale of the lies.

And punch back, i never fear them, and I never back down, and they know it, I know it, you just dont belive iit, yet, physical cowardness is sometimes understandable and also reasonable, in face of devastating enemys, etc, but its the Mental clap traps I find much more damaging than living in denile or ignorance, by means of consent or willfyllu self imposed cencure, where you dont even have the f….. balls to challange your self, push the boundarys of your own bloody consciousness, what then can WE expect, huh, have no mercy in debates with this liers and scums, I have non.
Because, drumrole………. ding, I have one thing they dont have, just one, the Truth.

Fly like an butterfly and sting like an bee.
Casius Clay aka: Muhammad Ali.

You can deny global warming and you are perfectly free to do so.
You can deny the world is round, and you are perfectely free to do so.
But if you question any aspect of the ‘holocaust’ and the ‘6 million’ figure, this is illegal in many countries and you will be cast out of society.
Surely, if the facts are as they are claimed to be by the holocaust industry, there is no need to worry about any questioning of them? The very fact that questioning them is stamped on, makes questioning them even more important.

Jews have never been safer on Britains streets – in the main it is young black men who have the most to fear when it comes to personal safety

The Labour anti-semitism trope is clearly a confection orchestrated by right wing sources and relentlessly promoted by political place men and their allies in the MSM.

Funnily enough this article is part of the problem (as is this response) – since antisemitism in reality is a non-existent problem that exists only in the minds of right wing fanatics surely the solution is to no longer provide the oxygen of publicity it requires to perpetuate it?

Corbyn when asked should deny antisemitism is an existential problem, allude to the real sources of the hate (perhaps citing some of the poison spewed by Margaret Hodge) while refusing to engage in the game the media is playing which is essentially a form of entrapment by pressurising Corbyn to dare utter a single word that might be misconstrued.

Left wing media platforms should do the same – stop reinforcing the bullshit by endless analysis.

The other antidote to this kind of shite is solidarity, but the expulsions and back biting prove that while Corbyn may have moved Labour in the right direction it is still a party riven with its fair share of disgruntled Blairites.

I agree entirely, especially the point regarding young black men. This constant drip of me, me, me, emanating from a faction of self serving bodies denigrates the plight and suffering of so many others, windrush, waspie, grenfell, NHS employees, the list is endless. I commented on a well meaning post written by Robert Cohen last week making pretty much the same point you have – ‘These ‘Theories’ written by well meaning individuals are a waste of thought and time. The attacks on Corbyn are borne out of a greed for (even more) wealth and power, not forgetting the arms! It doesn’t matter to the originator that these attacks are totally un-credible, they are purely a pathetic weapon, borne out of desperation, targeted at the ignorant and deserve to be ignored. The more people discuss, theorise and compare, as you would a revolutionary new materpiece the more successful they become, the more Corbyn is forced to answer to the undeserving. It’s contrived fake news, ignore, delete and move on and stop giving the desperate, conniving, Torys the satisfaction of seeing it clogging up social media for days/weeks’

I see this whole affair more as an attack on democracy, rather than Jeremy Corbyn per se.
Is today the day when the NEC decide whether to adopt the IHRC in full? If they do adopt, then Labour will effectively be aligned with Netanyahu’s ‘survival of the strong’….
How can someone like Corbyn argue the point down to the fundamentals, without touching upon some deeply taboo matters? I cannot see how.

The murder of Jo Cox (a staunch supporter of Palestinians) was very suspicious in my view. Not only was the person arrested a very unlikely suspect but his trial was a complete farce. I strongly suspect Israeli involvement which leads me to wonder, as I did below, if Zionists might be against the U.K. leaving the EU. If so, the killing a week before the referendum of the very pro-EU Cox would have served a dual purpose by not only eliminating a strong voice for the Palestinians but also, by framing far-right nationalists for the hit, the expectation would be that Remain would garner more votes (the polls at the time were showing Leave and Remain as neck and neck).

Corbyn, and those around him, don’t think that much can be gained, and probably an awful lot lost, by Corbyn being drawn into a trap of vigorously debating the question of Palestine and the true character of Zionism and the Jewish state of Israel. This may be a mistake. Time will tell.

Paradoxically, if Corbyn had the rhetorical gifts, the will and the arguments to defend himself ‘properly’ against the smears of anti-Semitism, this would only make matters worse for him, as a strong defence or counter-attack would been twisted by his opponents and the media to show that he had racist and anti-Semitic views! He literally cannot ‘win’ in a battle with the combined media, arguably no one can.

But he can, if he plays his cards right, become PM instead. And I believe that’s his goal and his top priority. I don’t think the smears aimed at him will work and most British people don’t give a monkey’s about Israel or even Jews, they have other and far more important things to think about.

I have no doubt that the campaign against Corbyn was born in the Israeli government and is based on the Embassy in London.
There are many indications that it is counter productive in that, by supporting the ludicrous unfair charges against both the Labour Party and its elected leadership, MPs are making it impossible for their CLPs to renominate them while forcing the Party Conference to the conclusion that re-selection must become mandatory again.
It is plainly impossible for the Party to continue to give its support and lend its name to MPs, such as Jess Phillips and Ian Austin, not to mention John Mann who started the witchhunt against Livingstone, who consistently work against it and actively seek to prevent a Labour government. In their anxiety to demonstrate their loyalty to Israel, right or wrong, they have lost the chance to sabotage the socialist that they hate when it matters.
Into the dustbin of history they go- for repeated premature ejaculations.

Firstly Corbyn was portrayed by the MSM as bumbling and ineffectual as leader of the labour party. A dinosaur a so called Luddite. Then May called a snap election and all the fake news the MSM could muster fell away. People saw one of those unusual creatures an honest politician. His popularity, not surprisingly soared.

In fact he is as Ken Livingston says the the best socialist leader in a generation.

The Zionist card is being played now. Will it succeed? I hope not as this is an odious tactic, but one that is used as the Satan Manoeuvre which is where an argument based on no truth or facts is introduced so it is impossible to argue cogently. It’s an old tactic. [Interviewer asks about the discoveries of fossils that were undoubtedly millions of years old; how could the minister account for those age-old fossils? The minister replies simply, “Satan put them there.]

True Laura…but alas, most of the manifesto is being crowded out of the MSM by the AS nonsense.

His history in politics speaks for itself, he has far more important issues to deal with and why treat these ludicrous claims with any credibility by even acknowledging their existence, furthermore how can you reason with blatant lies.<<

We are not losing members though – 10,000 have joined amid all these smears. Another gem from John McDonnell was his statement explaining that the smears will get much worse the nearer we get to an election

I think Corbyn, despite his strong adherence to principles, is also a realist. With a significant likelihood, he will sooner or later be prime minister of Britain. Corbyn as a prime minister certainly could achieve a lot, not only as far as economic and social policies are concerned, he would probably also be a significant opponent of neoconservative war hawks and to a significant degree turn around the pernicious role Britain has been playing in international politics and wars. He is a much more principled opponent of the neoconservative ideology than, for instance, Bernie Sanders (maybe, if after 2020, Bernie Sanders is US president and Jeremy Corbyn British prime minister, Corbyn might have some beneficial influence on Sanders). But, as far as the Palestinian cause is concerned, Corbyn is probably well aware that he won’t be able to go very far because he would not have enough support in parliament for this. While Corbyn would not say anything to betray his convictions about the rights of Palestinians, I think in the current situation when he is not just an MP, but the potential next prime minister, it makes sense for him not to focus too much on an issue for which he would not have a majority even after winning an election. I suppose Corbyn would be able to present well-reasoned criticism of Zionism, but that would both weaken him and his prospects of becoming prime minister and raise false hopes among his supporters about what he might be able to do for Palestinians as prime minister. Sometimes, people go too far with compromises and realpolitik, but I think it makes sense that even someone as principled as Corbyn does not completely ignore such considerations.

One may think that for all those who use the most extreme and absurd slurs against Corbyn in connection with antisemitism, anyway, it would not make a big difference any more if he now had a speech clearly criticizing the Zionist ideology, since they have already used all their arsenal against him, but I think it would be risky. Probably, in that case – even if such a speech contained reasonable arguments against parts of the Zionist ideology -, probably some influential people from his own party who had not taken part in the attacks on him would join in and turn on him. Therefore, is seems advisable to attempt to de-emphasize that issie on which he does not have a majority among Labour MPs now and on which he certainly won’t have a parliamentary majority after a future election victory. In some smaller, more limited ways, he would probably still be able to do something to support Palestinians as prime minister, but there won’t be a clearly anti-Zionist British foreign policy.

Here we have documentary evidence of the Israeli embassy authorising its senior PR staff members to directly intervene into the internal affairs of a (nominally at least) sovereign state, the UK, by attempting to infiltrate its political parties and political groups and therefore its foreign policy.

The 5 part documentary by the Qatari TV station, Al Jazeera ‘The Lobby’ (it’s on you tube) shows how their target was the Labour Party through Labour students and through the zionist front ogranization, ‘Labour Friends of Israel’. The Conservative Party, ‘Conservative Friends of Israel’ being already bought and paid for. But Israel which of course is innocent of all crimes must not be criticised, oh no, that would be ‘antisemitic’. Israel of course is above reproach; this much is axiomatic. So any factual historical crimes which began during the British mandate and after – beginning with the blowing up of the King David hotel in Jerusalem in,1946 by the terrorist group, the Irgun led by Menacham Begin, later to become PM of Israel, which killed over 90 people, or the assassination of Lord Moyne in Cairo, or the letter bombs posted by zionist terrorists – the Stern Gang – to prominent Labour MPs during the British mandate – perhaps will be designated as ‘hate-speech’. These were non-events, in the words of Harold Pinter,’ .. even whilst they were happening they were not happening.’

If any sovereign state was subject to this type of outside interference there would be uproar and rightly so, but Israel gets away with it. Exactly the same double standards are also apparent in the US when Netanyahu gets himself invited himself to the US, much to the chagrin of Obama, who after all was only the US President, and sets himself up lecturing Congress about Israel’s supposedly inalienable right to build more illegal settlement on confiscated Palestinian lands, all to thunderous applause! Yes, in the US APAIC, as well as other zionist pressure groups, the Israel tail wags the US dog; increasingly this seems to be the case in the UK.

It was interesting to note that it was Joe Biden who opined ‘You don’t have to be jewish to be a zionist. And criticism of Israel, with its appalling war crimes and open disregard for international law, its apartheid and racist constitution and practice IS NOT THE SAME as anti-semitism, yet the charge of anti-semitism is the cover always used to silence criticism of Israel.

I hope that I am wrong but regrettably I think Corbyn will buckle under the pressure being exerted by zionist propagandists. Adieu free speech and reasoned debate.

I’m aware of the long history of Jewish opposition to the Zionist Project, from ultra-orthodox Jews to activists on the left. Came to know Ben Gurion’s cousin a while back who alerted me to the problematic correspondence between him and other Zionist leaders advocating ethnic cleansing-‘transfer’ (shades of Eichmann!)

I never met a more passionate or dedicated supporter of the Palestinian cause than him, and therefore became immune to the gentile liberalism of those who would soft-pedal their criticisms of Israel.

The dispossession of a people from their land, is also, a genocide, as Canadian Indigenous peoples claim. Oh, and ethnic cleansing, or transfer, as if what happened to the Jews justifies what they did to the Palestinians. It takes a special kind of thinking to argue “Their numbers were multiplying very fast”. That’s their survival mechanism, thanks, as demographic realities catch up to the Jewish state.

I don’t see him on the back foot, I see a very strong person who doesn’t see a need to waste his time answering to contrived, divisive, fabrications. His history in politics speaks for itself, he has far more important issues to deal with and why treat these ludicrous claims with any credibility by even acknowledging their existence, furthermore how can you reason with blatant lies. I heard some of John McDonnells speech yesterday, suggesting to Rabbi Sacks that if he has a complaint about JC to come and sit down and talk to Jeremy, he will be more than happy to do so. It really made me laugh because it was such a clever tactic.
If these claims were genuine talking about the way forward is the only answer, I would say he knows exactly what he is doing, he has been in Parliament for 30 years +

The neoliberals and Friends of Israel are certainly after Corbyn with a vengeance. What I’d like to know is where do Zionists stand on Brexit? Corbyn has always been anti-EU – is this another reason they want to destabilise him?

Have you completely missed the Brexit betrayal? According to Starmer, everything, including a Second Referendum, is “on the table” …everything except leaving, that is. This is clearly the Blairite position, and the Blairites and Zionists form a mutually inclusive group.

These people will use every trick in the book. He’s a ‘nice old man’ but ‘mumbling and fumbling’ doesn’t sound good! The Livingstone story is amazing by any standards. What he said was an historical fact yet that is simply denied. The Nazis sought several solutions to what they called their Jewish problem. Before 1941 that involved schemes of mass deportation to places in S America and Madagasar. Israel was closed by the British who ruled Palestine. The monstrous idea to eliminate the Jews from Europe by mass extermination only came during the drive into Russia and when Germany was esssentially landlocked so far as mass deportations were concerned. A cold verifiable historical fact is denied: isn’t that alarming?

Despite everything we’ve been told, and retold; there is no evidence to support the Jabotinsky propaganda that there was the … “idea to eliminate the Jews from Europe by mass extermination.” Verifiable Red Cross records and population statistics suggest that there was actually an INCREASE in the J3wisch population during the war years. 40-60 million Russians were killed during the B-Revolution, they were predominantly murdered by the very same people bleeting “woe is me.”

While we are on the subject of the memory hole, your excellent post deserves backing up with another excellent open letter, above, from a couple of years ago on the whole history of the zionist project by Tony Greenstein.

What more needs to be said? Lets get on with the real issues of the failed school academy industry, the failed future generations, tied into debt as soon as they can. The seniors and their foresaken carers trapped by home ownership into not receiving adequate care. The failed privatised prisoners for profit. The rip off Health Industry brought in by stealth by having the NHS fail etc.

It is flimflam and prestidigitariness that keeps our attention bouncing between AS and Brexit – while the people are failed.

Let’s stop listening and dancing to these tunes, ignore them like wrecking sirens and lets get JC tied to the mast to get us to safe harbour at last.

Follow OffGuardian via Email

OffG on Twitter

OffG’s editors

About

OffGuardian is the creation of people from different parts of the world committed to the original vision which drew us together on The Guardian‘s CiF pages...Tired of being censored by our beloved, once-upon-a-time left-of-centre newspaper, in February 2015 we decided to create our own platform for airing our unacceptable opinions.

If you’re also sick of being stifled, moderated, slandered as 'Putinbots' or worse, and censored to oblivion on any of the Readers’ Comments sections of our mainstream press, come and tell us about it.